Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18
Book of the acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the prophet 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22
Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
An earlier epistle to the Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Epistle to the Laodiceans Colosians 4:16
Prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude Jude 1:14
Book of the covenant Exodus 24:7 (may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus)
The Manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel 1 Samuel 10:25
Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah 2 Chronicles 26:22
The "Acts of Abijah...in the Story of the Prophet Iddo" 2 Chronicles 13:22 (seems to not be the same as the Prophecy of Ahijah or the Visions of Iddo)
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew's reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no such statement. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.
Luke noted (Luke 1:1) that "many" had written about "those things which are most surely believed among us," yet our Bible has only two earlier Gospels, those of Matthew and Mark (John having been written after Luke). The Bible doesn't contain the earlier books to which Luke had reference. The books of 1-2 Kings frequently speak of the "rest of the acts" of the kings contained in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Some readers undoubtedly believe that these refer to the books known as 1 and 2 Chronicles in our present Bibles. But an examination of the latter shows that they generally do not reveal any of the additional information about these kings that we expect to find there. Moreover, there is good evidence that the biblical books of Chronicles are really later reworkings of 2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings, with deletion of much more material than they add. Consequently, they cannot be the chronicles referred to in the earlier books.
Another reference to a writing not found in the Bible is in 2 Chronicles 35:25, where we read that Jeremiah's lamentation for the slain king Josiah is "written in the lamentations." Many Bible readers have assumed that Josiah is the "anointed of the Lord...taken in their pits," mentioned in Lamentations 4:20. There are two problems with this identification, however: 1) The book of Lamentations was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, two decades after the death of Josiah, and 2) The "anointed of the Lord" taken in the pit clearly refers to the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, who, at the time the Babylonians took Jerusalem, was caught "in their pit" and taken captive to Babylon (Ezekiel 19:8-9). In connection with the Nazarene prophecy, we might add that the scriptural quotes by Jesus found in Luke 11:49 and John 7:38 are not found in today's Old Testament. Similar unsupported quotes are found in Ephesians 5:14 and James 4:5f, as well as in Acts 20:35, where Paul attributes to Jesus a saying found nowhere else in the Bible, including the Gospels.
Ok, so smith under the power and inspiration of God ‘retranslated’ the KJV to make it read better? Is that your story?
With two JATO packs.
You were the one that brought up the ‘variants’.
And we can agree to disagree all you want, fact remains that I am not an ‘armchair’ scholar on this matter and know the scholars involved and their work.
It is a false notion that the Bible has been and is a fixed set of scripture...Further the text of the Bible has been altered by copyists over the centuries. [TheDon]
You know, I've seen Lds commercials on TV over the years offering free KJV Bibles. Now, TheDon, if your two statements above were placed in a commercial that immediately followed up those commercials, wouldn't that constitute being an "anti-Mormon free KJV Bible" commercial?
How can the Lds Church HQ marketing committee say one thing about an implied endorsement of the KJV Bible in one venue -- all the while you seemingly say something totally opposite in another venue?
Also, how can that in ANY WAY be construed as "ecumenical" -- when you are diametrically opposing implied endorsements realed off as commercials?
Now that I've asked you about endorsements & opposition, can I ask you about content issues?
You imply that we have no "standard" copies to measure that against any 3rd or 4th generational copies that may have been "altered by copyists over the centuries."
That sounds to me that you're taking a "de-evolution" type argument. The "evolution" argument about the creation of the earth is that given enough time, time will put life on earth. It seems to me that you're "de-evolution" argument you're setting forth, is that if you give enough generational time, copyists will make errors.
Now what seems to be at odds with this argument? The fact is that even not having any NT manuscript copies earlier than the 4th century, we can piece together the NT as it appeared within 150-200 years of Jesus' earthly life. How? The early church fathers. They quoted their NT in their writings. Extensively. To the degree that we can piece together the 2nd century NT -- except for a mere 11 verses -- all on the basis of their writings.
Now, some Lds claim the Bible was corrupted by the 4th century. Others claim it began to be corrupted by early 2nd century -- when the disciples were dead or almost dying off. But you know, that's an argument from silence. Where's the proof of that?
My analogy in all of this: Imagine you live in the year 3750. No original Doctrine & Covenants exists. Only copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. But you have an extensive Mormon historical library that includes Lds writers from the 20th, 21st, and 22nd centuries. And from these writers, you can re-piece together with certainty what the "original" D&C looked like between the periods of 1835-1976...except for 11 verses.
So, TheDon, would you then claim, if the "earliest" published D&C on hand in 3750 was one copied from around 2210, that the D&C had been "altered" by republishers "over the centuries"??? (Yes? No?)
(Oh, and BTW...do you highlight in your threads & posts that we already know that the BoM has been altered by editors over the past less than 200 years?...AND that we know that Mormons don't have the original BoM???...That books are missing???...)
Continued display of not knowing the history of the development of the biblical canon. Don - the early church fathers before the end of the second century in their writings cite all by 11 versed that are currently in the bible.
I'll type this real slow - same scriptures before the end of the second century - same verses in 2010 save 11. That does not equal centuries of altering by copiests.
This is the first generation after the Apostles. It is incredible that you would make such a statement - except that for mormons, they must denigrate the bible in order to make the bom and the rest of their scriptures more palatable.
What most LDS do not understand is the Bible is either trustworthy or it isn’t.
If it isn’t, then we cannot trust it ON A SINGLE POINT, including the life and sacrifice of Jesus.
If the Bible IS trustworthy, then there is no need for extra scripture because the Bible contains all that we need for salvation.
It is an either/or proposition. There is no middle ground.
Interesting that the mormons accept the bom at face value, but must denigrate the bible to “as correctly translated”. If we want to look face value - 4000 changes in the bom - from where did the changes come from? Isn’t that a sign of NOT being correctly translated.
If we want to look face value - 4000 changes in the bom - from where did the changes come from? Isn’t that a sign of NOT being correctly translated.
- - - - - - -
Especially since, according to descriptions of the BOM translation process, it was given word for word.
Also, regarding Biblical MSS ‘variants’, one transposition (Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ) copied into a hundred and fifty MSS, is considered not ONE variant but 151 variants. One missing or incorrect letter (world/wrld/wurld) in one hundred MSS would be over 300 ‘errors’. And none of the variants affect any Christian doctrine/practice.
Now compare that with the 4000 BoM changes, some of which are spelling and grammar but many others are additions and deletions. How can that be if it was given word for word?
Given these factors, I will place my faith in the Bible, for which we DO have early MSS.
Interesting that the mormons accept the bom at face value, but must denigrate the bible to “as correctly translated”. If we want to look face value - 4000 changes in the bom - from where did the changes come from? Isn’t that a sign of NOT being correctly translated.
***
You complaints are bogus!
Would like to remind all that the word of God does not belong to any one group it is for all God’s children so if all of the records are not present and to learn now that there exist over 1000 varions on the NT it is interesting and that the one in used today is 8 times removed from the original manuscripts!
one in used today is 8 times removed from the original manuscripts!
- - - - - - -
Source, because that is not factually correct.
this is an ecumenical resty, should you desire to dispute my figures you should do so in the correct manner.
If it isn’t, then we cannot trust it ON A SINGLE POINT, including the life and sacrifice of Jesus.
I'm curious how you reconcile this extreme position with your well expressed knowledge of the many variants of the Greek NT. I hope I'm not assuming to much by saying I think you believe the Bible is trustworthy. I certainly do. Would you say that the Bible is trustworthy inspite of the many variants? I do.
And to add, what I hope is a point of agreement, the Bible is either correct regarding the role of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, or it is not. Jesus Christ is either our Savior and Redeemer or he is not. There is no middle ground.
We do not denigrate the Bible by saying it is the revelation from God “as correctly translated" any more than you do. The converse is to believe that any translation, no matter how inaccurate, is acceptable. I hope I don't assume too much to say I don't think you would agree with that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.